the landscape of socioeconomic and racial/ethnic educational inequality sean f. reardon Stanford University May, 2016
the landscape of socioeconomic and racial/ethnic educational inequality
sean f. reardon Stanford University
May, 2016
Animating questions1. How much do educational outcomes vary across
communities in the U.S.?
2. And why?Home environment, neighborhood conditions, pre‐school availability/quality, K‐12 school quality?
3. And what can we do to equalize outcomes?Help families? Improve neighborhoods? Fund quality pre‐school? Improve K‐12 schools?
Data• Average district‐level standardized test scores (on state accountability tests)
• 11,280 geographic school districts (including charter schools)• Grades 3‐8• Math & ELA (today I’m reporting average of Math and ELA)• 2009‐2013 (10 cohorts of students entering K in 2000 – 2009)• By race/ethnicity• Based on ~215,000,000 test scores• Scores are placed on common scale across states, years, and grades
• Demographic data • Family characteristics (of families with children in public schools)• From American Community Survey (ACS)
Stanford Education Data Archive (SEDA)• Available at http://seda.stanford.edu• These data exist thanks to the following people:
Ross Santy, Micheal Hawes, Marilyn Seastrom (US Dept. of Education)Andrew Ho (Harvard University)Demetra Kalogrides, Kenneth Shores, Ben Shear, Erin Fahle (Stanford University)
• Funding support fromInstitute of Education SciencesSpencer FoundationWilliam T. Grant Foundation
What do average test scores tell us?1. Average test scores differences are not solely the result of differences in
schools; they are the total result of children’s home, neighborhood, pre‐school, after‐school, and K‐12 schooling experiences.
2. They are not measures of intelligence, but of performance (so are affected by what students have been taught and have learned and how motivated they are to perform on standardized tests).
3. Test performance is not the only educational outcome we care about; but it is a reasonable proxy for the extent of opportunity.
4. The estimated average achievement levels are not exact, and so should not be used to make fine distinctions among school districts.
‐5
‐4
‐3
‐2
‐1
0
1
2
3
4
Average Ac
hievem
ent (Grade
Levels)
‐4 ‐3 ‐2 ‐1 0 1 2 3
<‐‐‐‐‐ Poor/Disadvantaged ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Affluent/Advantaged ‐‐‐‐‐>
US School Districts, 2009‐2013
Academic Achievement and Socioeconomic Status
‐5
‐4
‐3
‐2
‐1
0
1
2
3
4
Average Ac
hievem
ent (Grade
Levels)
‐4 ‐3 ‐2 ‐1 0 1 2 3
<‐‐‐‐‐ Poor/Disadvantaged ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Affluent/Advantaged ‐‐‐‐‐>
100 Largest US School Districts, 2009‐2013
Academic Achievement and Socioeconomic Status
‐5
‐4
‐3
‐2
‐1
0
1
2
3
4
Average Ac
hievem
ent (Grade
Levels)
‐4 ‐3 ‐2 ‐1 0 1 2 3
<‐‐‐‐‐ Poor/Disadvantaged ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Affluent/Advantaged ‐‐‐‐‐>
Massachusetts DistrictsCalifornia Districts
California and Massachusetts School Districts, 2009‐2013
Academic Achievement and Socioeconomic Status
Where does academic performance grow fastest?We can compute the average change in test scores between 3rd and 8th grade (within a cohort of students).
This can be thought of as an (imperfect) measure of “community value‐added”—a measure of growth in test scores, net of differences in third‐grade performance. This may be closer to a measure of place‐based opportunity than the measure of average test scores, because growth may be less confounded with family background than average levels of performance.
A caveat: these estimates will be biased if there is differential grade retention, mobility, or drop‐out among school districts in ways that are related to children’s test performance.
0.50
0.75
1.00
1.25
1.50
Average Growth (G
rade
s/Year)
‐4 ‐3 ‐2 ‐1 0 1 2 3
<‐‐‐‐‐ Poor/Disadvantaged ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Affluent/Advantaged ‐‐‐‐‐>
100 Largest US School Districts, 2009‐2013
Academic Achievement Growth and Socioeconomic Status
0.50
0.75
1.00
1.25
1.50
Average Growth (G
rade
s/Year)
‐4 ‐3 ‐2 ‐1 0 1 2 3
<‐‐‐‐‐ Poor/Disadvantaged ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Affluent/Advantaged ‐‐‐‐‐>
Massachusetts DistrictsCalifornia Districts
California and Massachusetts School Districts, 2009‐2013
Academic Achievement Growth and Socioeconomic Status
‐5
‐4
‐3
‐2
‐1
0
1
2
3
4
5
Average Ac
hievem
ent (Grade
Levels)
‐4 ‐3 ‐2 ‐1 0 1 2 3
<‐‐‐‐‐ Poor/Disadvantaged ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Affluent/Advantaged ‐‐‐‐‐>
Grade 3
Grade 4
Grade 5
Grade 6
Grade 7
Grade 8
US School Districts, 2009‐2013
District SES‐Achievement Gradient, by Grade
Mean SES 0.080 *** 0.006 ***Percent Black ‐0.297 *** ‐0.020 ***Percent Hispanic ‐0.126 *** ‐0.027 ***Percent Asian 0.517 *** 0.010 Perecnt Native American ‐0.269 *** ‐0.015 Percent ELL ‐0.404 *** 0.092 ***Percent Special Ed. ‐0.548 *** ‐0.077 ***Percent FRPL ‐0.589 *** ‐0.017 ** Income Inequality (Gini) 0.675 *** 0.035 * Percent in Charter Schools ‐0.196 *** 0.002 Instructional Expenditures/Pupil 0.118 *** 0.002 Black‐White Segregation ‐0.115 ‐0.004 Hispanic‐White Segregation 0.019 0.016 N 6102 6102 r2 0.788 0.225
Mean Scores Growth Gr 3‐8
Note: Models also include controls for district size, student‐teacher ratio, non‐instructionnal expenditures, racial/ethnic SES differeences, and state fixed effects.
Partial Associations of Average Third Grade Test Scores and Grade 3‐8 Gains with School District Characteristics, 2009‐2013
Mean SES 0.080 *** 0.006 ***Percent Black ‐0.297 *** ‐0.020 ***Percent Hispanic ‐0.126 *** ‐0.027 ***Percent Asian 0.517 *** 0.010 Perecnt Native American ‐0.269 *** ‐0.015 Percent ELL ‐0.404 *** 0.092 ***Percent Special Ed. ‐0.548 *** ‐0.077 ***Percent FRPL ‐0.589 *** ‐0.017 ** Income Inequality (Gini) 0.675 *** 0.035 * Percent in Charter Schools ‐0.196 *** 0.002 Instructional Expenditures/Pupil 0.118 *** 0.002 Black‐White Segregation ‐0.115 ‐0.004 Hispanic‐White Segregation 0.019 0.016 N 6102 6102 r2 0.788 0.225
Mean Scores Growth Gr 3‐8
Note: Models also include controls for district size, student‐teacher ratio, non‐instructionnal expenditures, racial/ethnic SES differeences, and state fixed effects.
Partial Associations of Average Third Grade Test Scores and Grade 3‐8 Gains with School District Characteristics, 2009‐2013
Mean SES 0.080 *** 0.006 ***Percent Black ‐0.297 *** ‐0.020 ***Percent Hispanic ‐0.126 *** ‐0.027 ***Percent Asian 0.517 *** 0.010 Perecnt Native American ‐0.269 *** ‐0.015 Percent ELL ‐0.404 *** 0.092 ***Percent Special Ed. ‐0.548 *** ‐0.077 ***Percent FRPL ‐0.589 *** ‐0.017 ** Income Inequality (Gini) 0.675 *** 0.035 * Percent in Charter Schools ‐0.196 *** 0.002 Instructional Expenditures/Pupil 0.118 *** 0.002 Black‐White Segregation ‐0.115 ‐0.004 Hispanic‐White Segregation 0.019 0.016 N 6102 6102 r2 0.788 0.225
Mean Scores Growth Gr 3‐8
Note: Models also include controls for district size, student‐teacher ratio, non‐instructional expenditures, racial/ethnic SES differences, and state fixed effects.
Partial Associations of Average Third Grade Test Scores and Grade 3‐8 Gains with School District Characteristics, 2009‐2013
Where are racial/ethnic disparities larger/smaller?
‐5
‐4
‐3
‐2
‐1
0
1
2
3
4
Average Ac
hievem
ent (Grade
Levels)
‐4 ‐3 ‐2 ‐1 0 1 2 3
<‐‐‐‐‐ Poor/Disadvantaged ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Affluent/Advantaged ‐‐‐‐‐>
Majority Black/Hispanic US School Districts, 2009‐2013
Academic Achievement and Socioeconomic Status
‐5
‐4
‐3
‐2
‐1
0
1
2
3
4
Average Ac
hievem
ent (Grade
Levels)
‐5 ‐4 ‐3 ‐2 ‐1 0 1 2 3
<‐‐‐‐‐ Poor/Disadvantaged ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Affluent/Advantaged ‐‐‐‐‐>
White StudentsHispanic StudentsBlack Students
Race‐Specific District Socioeoconomic Status
US School Districts With 100+ Students of a Given Race/Ethnicity, 2009‐2013
Academic Achievement and Socioeconomic Status, by Race/Ethnicity
‐0.50
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
White‐Black Achievemen
t Gap
(SD's)
‐2 0 2 4 6 8
<‐‐‐‐‐ Black Advantage ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ White Advantage ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐>
Weighted by Black Enrollment
U.S. School Districts With at Least 200 Black Students, 2009‐2013
White‐Black Achievement Gap and Socioeconomic Differences
OaklandWashington DC
Chapel HillEvanstonBerkeley
Atlanta
‐0.50
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
White‐Black Achievemen
t Gap
(SD's)
‐2 0 2 4 6 8
<‐‐‐‐‐ Black Advantage ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ White Advantage ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐>
Weighted by Black Enrollment
U.S. School Districts With at Least 200 Black Students, 2009‐2013
White‐Black Achievement Gap and Socioeconomic Differences
‐0.50
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
White‐Black Achievemen
t Gap
(SD's)
‐.1 0 .1 .2 .3 .4 .5 .6
<‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ White‐Black Difference in Exposure to Poor Schoolmates ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐>
Weighted by Black Enrollment
U.S. School Districts With at Least 200 Black Students, 2009‐2013
White‐Black Achievement Gap and Segregation
‐5
‐4
‐3
‐2
‐1
0
1
2
3
4
Average Ac
hievem
ent (Grade
Levels)
‐4 ‐3 ‐2 ‐1 0 1 2 3
<‐‐‐‐‐ Poor/Disadvantaged ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Affluent/Advantaged ‐‐‐‐‐>
US School Districts, 2009‐2013
Academic Achievement and Socioeconomic Status